A special education legal resource discussing case law, news, practical advocacy advice, and developments in state and federal laws, statutes and regulations. Postings include insight and sometimes humor from Charles P. Fox, a Chicago, Illinois attorney who is also a parent of child with special needs, and other guest authors. Email: [email protected]

October 18, 2016

I have always adhered to the adage that reasonable people can reasonably disagree, whether it is in the context of an IEP meeting or even our current political debate. With this in mind, I discussed in a recent blog how some of the issues in the current political elections may affect persons with disabilities but did so without taking a position on specific candidates. This blog is not partisan. I now want to go further and discuss how each candidate’s website, platform, or public statements (Democrat, Republican, or third party) details his or her proposals for how they will address issues related to disability. My goal is not to persuade readers to vote for one specific candidate but to ensure that readers are informed about the various positions espoused by candidates.

I’m also a strong proponent of not re-inventing wheels, and I quickly discovered that this research has already been done well by other disability-related websites. Complex Child, which is devoted to the needs of families of children with complex medical conditions or disabilities, culled from the websites of each candidate—Clinton, Johnson, Stein, and Trump—five different categories or issues:

Disability rights

Medicaid, insurance, and the healthcare system

Special education

Community living (including Medicaid waivers)

Specific condition plans (such as autism)

Complex Child compares how the different campaigns address, or in a number of instances, don’t address the highlighted issue.

Similarly, the American Association of Persons with Disabilities (AAPD) and the National Council on Independent Living (NCIL) provided a written questionnaire (REV UP—Register! Educate! Vote! Use your Power!) to each of the presidential candidates, of whom only Secretary Clinton and Mr. Trump responded. The candidates were questioned on:

Leadership

possible creation of National Office of Disability Coordination to be headed by a cabinet level official

inclusion of qualified persons with disabilities in your administration

Employment of persons with disabilities

Rehabilitation Act

Fair wages

Entrepreneurship

Transition for youth with disabilities

Ensuring appropriate flexibility in pubic program to support people with disabilities in the workforce

Advancing the civil and constitutional right of Americans with disabilities to be integrated in society

Transportation

Public transportation

Transportation networking companies

Autonomous vehicles

Air Travel

Technology

Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act

The Internet of Things

Education

IDEA funding

Curriculum and transition

Eliminating bullying and the use of restraints and seclusion

Educational inclusion of people with disabilities

Voting

Affordable, integrated and accessible housing

Health care

Discrimination in financing and provision of health care services to people with disabilities

Expanding access to affordable, comprehensive health care coverage

Improving the Medicaid program, including ensuring access to home and community based services and the elimination of bias toward institutional services in the Medicaid program

Please review the candidate responses to the REV UP survey to understand more fully the degree of substance and experience each candidate demonstrates.

If you are looking for a more partisan discussion of issues related to this election, my colleague Maureen Graves, a special education attorney in California and fellow member of COPAA (Council of Parents, Attorneys, and Advocates), has published Disability Advocates 2016. Ms. Graves’ website espouses a specific agenda not only for the next presidential election (she only discusses Secretary Clinton and Mr. Trump and not the third party candidates) but also critiques candidates for Senate races. Additionally, Ms. Graves rigorously argues how the outcome of the presidential election will affect our entire court system and not just the Supreme Court. Ms. Graves highlights Clinton and Trump’s attitudes, often in their own words, on such issues related to disability as:

Health care

Rights vs. charity

Special education

Autism

Employment

Social security

Environment

Consumer protection

Law enforcement

I personally think these websites provide reasoned and fascinating information that can help us not only view the election through the lens of disability but also educate us more fully on disability-related issues. If you have a different and documented perspective on any of the candidate’s positions on these issues, I would greatly welcome reading it. Please contact me and if appropriate, I will upload that information to my own blog.

October 17, 2016

Where to live in future years is an issue never far from my mind especially living in Illinois that ranks close to the bottom for services for people with disabilities. Download Case-for-Inclusion-2016-FINAL-3. For families that do not have a loved one with a disability, it may be a matter of where we are raised or where our extended family remains. Others locate their homes based upon where the job is. Weather or access to seasonal outdoors recreation is paramount to others. But according to WalletHub, a personal finance social network, and as many of us know, families with members who have disabilities have a rather different set of criteria for determining where we want to live. WalletHub attempted to quantify which of the nation’s most populous 150 cities is the most “Disability-Friendly” by looking at three chief areas: economics, quality of life, and health care. From here, an additional 25 specific criteria were weighted and considered. And the winner is. . . . Overland Park, Kansas.

Realistically, none of us is packing up and moving to Overland Park this week as the result of this survey. But the survey does give each of us food for thought as we consider what is truly essential to us and our families. In doing their calculations, WalletHub ascribed different weights to each of their 25 criteria. Those criteria that were doubly weighted—employment rate for people with disabilities, percentage of persons with disabilities living below the poverty line, median earnings for people with disabilities, or cost of a doctor visit--are clearly important to all of us. Surprisingly, only two of the criteria related to education—number of special education teachers per 1,000 school-aged population with disabilities (ascribed full weight) or graduation rate for students with disabilities (ascribed only half rate, which I would personally rate much higher). Truthfully, each of us might measure the criteria differently based on our needs.

The meat of the survey comes not from the 25 different criteria, but the five indicators that each of a panel of experts identified as essential in determining how favorable a city is for persons with disabilities. Not surprising, many suggestions overlap with one another. Experts cite the need for:

Medical care provided by professionals knowledgeable and sensitive to the needs of the disabled

High level of personal care providers

Community integration

Private agencies to provide expert supervision of housing and day programs

And my personal favorite--well supported state and local public schools

It’s fun to know that Pembroke Pines, FL has the lowest percentage of persons with disabilities living below the poverty level or that Boise, ID can boast (or not boast) of having the lowest employment rate for persons with disabilities. But moving forward, and for determining policy, WalletHub has assisted in identifying discrete policy areas that need improvement. So, I need not leave my home town of Chicago, which rated 78 of 150 cities, nor should residents of Providence, RI (148), Anchorage, AK (149), or Worcester, MA (150) start packing. We simply are now clearer as to where to begin our community advocacy. These are serious issues for many of us that are not easily resolved, and may involve significant relocation especially, as we face ultimate issues like parental mortality and what location will help insure high quality of life for our loved ones with a disability.